Crunch time

February 13 2012, 1:25 PM by Ray Acheson

This last PrepCom before formal negotiations commence later this year on an ATT give delegations one last opportunity to discuss treaty content—scope and parameters—but also to work out protocols that can lead to smoother and more productive negotiations. In this consensus-driven process, skeptical states have been able to voice their discomfort while more overtly supportive states have voiced some of their more ambitious aspirations. At the time that negotiations commence, ambition and discomfort will both evolve to become less about lifting up the ‘optimal’—whether optimal refers to a comprehensive treaty (which we would prefer) or no treaty at all—however that is defined—and more about maximizing the possible.

by Dr. Robert Zuber, Global Action to Prevent War

Along with other civil society groups working on this issue, there are several key items that we believe should be affirmed at a minimum prior to discussions on the framework for negotiations:

The Chair’s paper should be adopted as the basis for treaty negotiations;

Small arms and light weapons should be included as part of the scope;

A robust commitment to treaty review processes should be made so that problems in implementation can be ‘flagged’ and solutions offered to improve treaty effectiveness; and

A cost-effective structure (ISU) should be adopted that can field

ATT-related questions from states and guide the assessment and distribution of capacity support (and possibly in the future share concerns with exporting states about proposed transfers that have a high likelihood of diversion).

Delegations have heard some version of these recommendations many times before and have often expressed support for some or all of them. As we move into this new phase of the ATT process, we know that it is unrealistic to assume that any state will negotiate for—let alone formally ratify—a treaty that is inconsistent with its national interest. However, states participating in UN activities, including resolutions and negotiating sessions, do so in part from a desire to find creative ways to invest pieces of that national interest in discussions on a broader regional and global interest that enhances human security. Most diplomats seek to locate and adopt frameworks for collective security that can also successfully address pressing national security concerns and that can build trust among delegations that will be useful in deliberations on other security issues down the line.

The ATT may not be, as some states have continually reminded us, a disarmament treaty. But this is a treaty process that has collective and important security implications, not only for states but for communities. The more we can control diversion and its negative implications for criminality, terrorism, and corruption, the better we can guarantee stable transfers in a reliable security environment. As the business of arms transfers becomes more rational and transparent, the closer we will get to achieving a framework from which we can successfully address the sale of weapons most likely to create regional security crises or violate the human rights of populations. The desire to keep the most modern and sophisticated weapons out of the hands of irresponsible users, especially non-state actors and corrupt officials, is an aspiration shared by most states, including some states wary that an ATT can ever establish a genuinely fair and level playing field on transfers.

The issue now is how we move from what we want (or don’t) to what we can successfully and beneficially negotiate. This next and most critical phase will seek to integrate a high regard for the national interest, a willingness to honor states that have invested much effort in bringing this process to its current status, a recognition of the symbiotic relationship between national and global security, and an understanding that states sometimes support things they are not completely sure about in order to win support from other states for things they are more sure about.

There is optimism at headquarters about the ATT process, but also broad based caution from some states and experts because the treaty might seem to over-reach and for others because it might under-perform, at least in its initial iteration. But we remain convinced that there are many reasons to engage in good faith negotiating efforts to bring such a treaty to fruition. Ambassador Moritan and the many diplomats who have engaged this process throughout are skillful and knowledgeable negotiators. But we also hope that there will be opportunities prior to the commencement of formal negotiations for diplomats and civil society representatives to explore together ways to build trusting and actionable consensus on core ATT concerns.

The Control Arms campaign is a global civil society alliance that has advocated for a bulletproof Arms Trade Treaty for over a decade. Made up of over 100 charity, nonprofit, and nongovernmental groups throughout the world, Control Arms continues to strive for a world where deadly weapons are kept out of the wrong hands through a regulated arms trade.